Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+LK\-500\-NTC\s+v\.\s+SB\-220\s+v\.\s+Clipperrton\s+L\s*$/: 20 ]

Total 20 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] LK-500-NTC v. SB-220 v. Clipperrton L (score: 1)
Author: CAA357@aol.com
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 20:51:17 EDT
Opinions wanted: Today I adopted yet another amplifier in my small formidable shack and that is really two too many hi hi. I want to lighten my load however, I am trying to decide which amplifier to
/archives//html/Amps/2009-10/msg00067.html (6,690 bytes)

2. Re: [Amps] LK-500-NTC v. SB-220 v. Clipperrton L (score: 1)
Author: RICHARD SOLOMON <w1ksz@q.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 01:46:11 +0000
All things being equal ... they all work ... I would sell the Clipperton L. Reasoning being; the SB-220 and LK-500 use the same tubes. That reduces your cost for spare tubes. 73, Dick, W1KSZ ________
/archives//html/Amps/2009-10/msg00068.html (8,369 bytes)

3. Re: [Amps] LK-500-NTC v. SB-220 v. Clipperrton L (score: 1)
Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 22:02:57 -0400
He asked which ONE to keep. If 160 is important then that eliminates the SB-220. If it was my pick Id keep the LK-500 and convert to a regular tune amp. Ive been runing a straight LK-500ZC since the
/archives//html/Amps/2009-10/msg00070.html (9,608 bytes)

4. Re: [Amps] LK-500-NTC v. SB-220 v. Clipperrton L (score: 1)
Author: RICHARD SOLOMON <w1ksz@q.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 04:56:01 +0000
No man can be truly happy with only 1 amp. Who many do you have Carl ?? 73, Dick, W1KSZ _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.c
/archives//html/Amps/2009-10/msg00078.html (10,352 bytes)

5. Re: [Amps] LK-500-NTC v. SB-220 v. Clipperrton L (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 02:08:42 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: My recommendation - dead serious - sell them all and get a good used Alpha, any of the 80 or 90 series. 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ Amps ma
/archives//html/Amps/2009-10/msg00082.html (8,421 bytes)

6. Re: [Amps] LK-500-NTC v. SB-220 v. Clipperrton L (score: 1)
Author: "Fortra" <fortra@siol.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 11:21:30 +0200
Hi Bill, goood and sound advice. That is exactly what i did, sold L7, TL-922, Dentron MLA-2500. Bought Alpha 91b, a pure joy of the amp., and never looked back! As said, there are no free lunches!! R
/archives//html/Amps/2009-10/msg00084.html (9,078 bytes)

7. Re: [Amps] LK-500-NTC v. SB-220 v. Clipperrton L (score: 1)
Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 14:01:05 -0400
Some of us prefer manual amps that can often be fixed on the fly. Others prefer sending the amp back for service; many are not even operator servicable. Maybe when I enter my senile years I'll need a
/archives//html/Amps/2009-10/msg00094.html (9,524 bytes)

8. Re: [Amps] LK-500-NTC v. SB-220 v. Clipperrton L (score: 1)
Author: n8de@thepoint.net
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:12:28 -0400
I AM in my 'senile' years ... geezer and proud of it. Still prefer manual tune amps over anything with a CPU in it ... they go bad .. when I go bad .. that's time to hang it up and run without an amp
/archives//html/Amps/2009-10/msg00095.html (10,125 bytes)

9. Re: [Amps] LK-500-NTC v. SB-220 v. Clipperrton L (score: 1)
Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:06:12 -0400
Whats the required age to attain geezer status? Carl KM1H I AM in my 'senile' years ... geezer and proud of it. Still prefer manual tune amps over anything with a CPU in it ... they go bad .. when I
/archives//html/Amps/2009-10/msg00099.html (11,775 bytes)

10. Re: [Amps] LK-500-NTC v. SB-220 v. Clipperrton L (score: 1)
Author: "Phil Clements" <philc@texascellnet.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 15:09:14 -0500
It is more of a state of mind, Carl! (((73))) Phil, K5PC _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
/archives//html/Amps/2009-10/msg00100.html (9,755 bytes)

11. Re: [Amps] LK-500-NTC v. SB-220 v. Clipperrton L (score: 1)
Author: mikea <mikea@mikea.ath.cx>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 15:11:08 -0500
At least ten years older than my age when the question was most recently posed. I just turned 63; I'm middle-aged. MIDDLE-AGED, DAMNIT! YOU ALL GOT THAT? I will admit that for a while I was a young f
/archives//html/Amps/2009-10/msg00101.html (9,191 bytes)

12. Re: [Amps] LK-500-NTC v. SB-220 v. Clipperrton L (score: 1)
Author: n8de@thepoint.net
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:24:16 -0400
Older than the other guy. Don N8DE _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
/archives//html/Amps/2009-10/msg00103.html (11,796 bytes)

13. Re: [Amps] LK-500-NTC v. SB-220 v. Clipperrton L (score: 1)
Author: n8de@thepoint.net
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:25:34 -0400
Yes, Mike ... I'm about that age. Now to get those 9 towers and 17 monobanders up. Don N8DE _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesti
/archives//html/Amps/2009-10/msg00104.html (9,684 bytes)

14. Re: [Amps] LK-500-NTC v. SB-220 v. Clipperrton L (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Playford" <paul@w8aef.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:44:33 -0700
I forgot shortly after I passed it <grin>. de Paul, W8AEF ZF2JI/ZF2TA FO8DX/FO8PLA 8Q7AA XZ0A VU7RG TX5D _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://l
/archives//html/Amps/2009-10/msg00105.html (9,114 bytes)

15. Re: [Amps] LK-500-NTC v. SB-220 v. Clipperrton L (score: 1)
Author: Glen Zook <gzook@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
Physical age or mental age? Glen, K9STH Website: http://k9sth.com Whats the required age to attain geezer status? _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com
/archives//html/Amps/2009-10/msg00106.html (8,472 bytes)

16. Re: [Amps] LK-500-NTC v. SB-220 v. Clipperrton L (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:49:13 -0400
73, Pete N4ZR New Articles Daily - the Contesting Compendium at http://wiki.contesting.com The World Contest Station Database, updated daily at www.conteststations.com The Reverse Beacon Network at
/archives//html/Amps/2009-10/msg00108.html (10,310 bytes)

17. Re: [Amps] LK-500-NTC v. SB-220 v. Clipperrton L (score: 1)
Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 17:11:52 -0400
During my contesting obsession days I had 17 monobanders for those bands. What a PITA! Still have the 4 towers and another is in the collecting parts stage. That will be devoted to UHF and microwave.
/archives//html/Amps/2009-10/msg00111.html (10,847 bytes)

18. Re: [Amps] LK-500-NTC v. SB-220 v. Clipperrton L (score: 1)
Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 17:19:23 -0400
I agree Phil, thats why I have a young girl friend. Carl KM1H _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
/archives//html/Amps/2009-10/msg00112.html (9,841 bytes)

19. Re: [Amps] LK-500-NTC v. SB-220 v. Clipperrton L (score: 1)
Author: Roger <sub1@rogerhalstead.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:44:08 -0400
That's one of the key indicators Carl! <:-)) 73 Roger (K8RI) _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
/archives//html/Amps/2009-10/msg00113.html (10,420 bytes)

20. Re: [Amps] LK-500-NTC v. SB-220 v. Clipperrton L (score: 1)
Author: "kingwood" <k5jv@kingwoodcable.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 07:31:05 -0500
Greetings to all, "Required age to attain geezer status" Wow! That sounds like Mark Twain's "Threshold of age." 73 de Lon, K5JV 1110 Golden Bear Ln. Kingwood, TX 77339 281-358-4207 281-358-4234 FAX 2
/archives//html/Amps/2009-10/msg00127.html (9,388 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu